"The past recedes and the future approaches. Our day is coming, whether or the bigots and the racists of the christian right and the republican party like it or not. They got in the car with Bush and he drove them off the cliff. Bad decision on their part. Good for the rest of the world. So long, suckers, see you in hell!"

Um, first of all, this is only the SECOND state to allow gay marriage...and there is a grass roots effort to amend the state constitution to do so...AND they may have sufficient people to sign the petition to get it on the ballot! So I think it's a BIT early to say "your day is coming."

Oh and "the bigots and the racists of the christian right and the republican party" would probably tell you that YOU will be in Hell but they won't be. Hey, I'm just telling you what they would say!

rw,

"The upcoming amendment initiative will be immediately struck down as unconstitutional because of one simple but irrefutable fact: The decision under discussion explicitly bases itself on the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment explicitly violates the Equal Protection Clause; to correct that, the amendment would have to at least partially strike down the Equal Protection Clause, which is, to put it mildly, unlikely."

Perhaps...depending on HOW it is worded. BUT, it would be interesting to see if it COULD be struck down...because HOW do you strike down an Amendment to a Constitution...because by definition, an Amendment is a CHANGE to a Constitution. Hence the new Amendment, at least logically, by defacto, strike down as unconstitutional the Equal Protection Clause, as you say. Unlikely, you say? But you cannot strike down as unconstitutional an Amendment. Surely a quandary!

Rw,

"For someone who is a professor of ethics, you don't seem to see that what the Court has done IS ethical and right based upon sound Constitutional principles. It seems kind of odd, doesn't it?!"

Depends on whether your ethics are religious based or not. If not, then the only ethics you have are those based on law, not religion. If religious, then you have an issue.

"I think what the Right will try to do is change the California constitution, changing the Equal Protection Act so as not to apply to gay marriage, like they did in Missouri. I really hope the people of California won't allow that, and I have a feeling that they won't in a general election, with high turnout."

I wouldn't bet the farm on that eric! Proposition 22 passed in 2000 and it's conceivable an amendment could pass too.

RW,

T"he Equal Protection Clause enshrines concepts that are considered fundamental to the California Constitution. The proposed amendment initiative would be struck down as its application would violate that fundamental centerpiece of the Constitution."

Sorry but an Amendment CANNOT be struck down by a state supreme court...any more than the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) could be struck down by the US Supreme court. An Amendment to a constitution can ONLY be negated by ANOTHER Amendment - a la the 21st Amendment Repealing Prohibition.

"As for the ridicule of the Red States: Oh, boo-hoo, the disapproval of people in Cobb County, Georgia is so important to me. I've seen the light! I'm going to renounce my homosexuality and go bang me a Hooters waitress, as JEE-SUS! truly intended, for so it is written in the Gospel According to Bubba."

Well if it doesn't both you, then whatever floats your boat. Just don't get pissed off about it later.

Amity,

"I don't know if you've noticed, but I think you're about 15 years behind the times, there, chief."

I meant in MASSE, and to force the issue - which is something they really haven't been able to do as well as they could if sufficent forces were available.

"Now Californians are going to be called, "gay-loving hippie liberal fruitcakes who did legalize gay marriage just as soon as they could.""

You may have a point here...I mean, how much worse COULD it get???

"this decision just clearly reaffirms that the state shouldn't be marrying people at all. the state should issue civil unions, and churches can handle the "marriage." marriage is for folks stuck in a previous time anyway, might as well link it to institutions stuck in same. the whole state marriage position is an idiotic relic of the 50's cold war mentality. maybe we should have hung on to science education instead of nuclear families that are destroying the world."

I believe this could actually work. Everyone could be given civil union licenses by the states and real marriages could be performed by ministers. Problem solved.

Now, do you think you can sell this to everyone???

bdop4,

"I'm sorry, but I'm not going to run and hide from a bunch of BS-spouting idiots. Are the RW trolls going to say nasty things? Of course, but I welcome the fight, and at some point you have to stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it's an election season. Let's take these bastards on for a change!"

Be VERY careful here! You are threatening to fight someone over their religion! This is one of those things you CAN'T take from someone because they WILL fight back...HARD. And inevitably you will lose anyway because they will die before they give up their faith.

I am just saying be careful HOW you fight someone when it comes to faith.